John D. Wolfe, executor, and Maria D. L. Ronalds, executrix of Thomas A. Ronalds' estate (the appellants) brought a case against John H Lewis (the respondent). The appellants argued that the respondent had wrongfully taken possession of certain property belonging to the deceased's estate which was located in Washington County, Maryland; they sought damages for this alleged trespass as well as an injunction restraining him from further interference with the property or its use by them. The Supreme Court held that since there was no evidence presented to show any actual damage done to the appellant’s right or title to said land it could not be established that a trespass had been committed and thus no actionable injury existed on which relief could be granted in favor of the appellants . Therefore, judgment was entered for the respondent and against the appellants dismissing their bill with costs

In the case of John D. Wolfe, Executor, and Maria D. L. Ronalds, Executrix of Thomas A. Ronalds v John H Lewis, the dissenting opinion was that the court should not have dismissed the appeal as moot because it had been brought on behalf of a deceased person who could no longer benefit from any decision rendered by the court in his favor or against him; rather than dismissing it as moot they should have decided on its merits to provide guidance for future cases involving similar issues and facts. The dissent argued that even though there was no direct benefit to be gained by deciding this particular case due to Mr Ronald's death before judgment could be made, there were still important principles at stake which needed clarification so that other parties would know how such matters ought to be handled in future cases with similar circumstances and facts presented therein. Furthermore, since both parties had already gone through considerable expense preparing their respective arguments for trial before learning about Mr Ronald's passing away during litigation proceedings; thus denying them an opportunity for resolution via judicial determination - justice demanded some form of relief or recompense from having invested time and money into something which ultimately yielded nothing but frustration instead of closure due to unforeseen events beyond anyone’s control